Womens World Records - Rip them up and start again ?

Whats your views on some of the more outlandish womens track records that are still allowed to stand at the moment - Specifically
Marita Koch - 400m
Jarmila Kratochvilova - 800m
Tatyana Olizarenko - 1500m
Flo -Jo - 100m and 200m

Are these records so far ahead of anything thats currently being achieved that they can't be 'clean' records, or have the standards dropped that much over the last twenty years ?

I tend to favour the first scenario...

So many of those performances and countless others not listed, seem hugely tainted but the problem is where do you draw the line.

Standards over many events have certainly dropped but that isn't totally down to drugs. Look at our own recent history when we had Coe, Ovett and little else since. That's down to other factors. Same drop-off across the rest of Europe.

Standards are highest in parts of Africa and the Caribbean, partly to genes, altitude (for East African athletes), limited other sporting opportunities and the chance through athletics to really make something out of their lives.

Thanks julio for an interesting talking point.

The trouble, as teassoc says, is deciding where to draw the line. For instance, thanks to well kept German records I believe we know for sure that Koch's performances were PED assisted. However, with the others there's no 100% certainty. Sure, we "know" that these records (and others - thinking of the women's distance one held by a Chinese girl I think) were in all likelihood dodgy, but we can't definitely prove it. The records being out of reach is just tough luck I guess.

Basically I'd say don't rewrite the books. At the end of the day people mostly remember medals rather than records anyway.

A good comparison point would be swimming, where world records are now incredibly rare due to the infamous "textile suit" era.

As for long lasting records, Jonathan Edwards has held his for 15 years, with no one really coming close (though Tamgho may manage it eventually). Bolt's records when he's done will probably last a very long time too. As teassoc points out, some British records have lasted for ever (women's 400 I think? Cook?). Sometimes you just get an incredibly gifted athlete who's way ahead of his time.

My personal belief is these records will eventually fall for the most part. Carmelia Jeter came reasonably close to Flo Jo's 100 record not that long ago I think...

Seb Coe's 800m record stood for a long time also.

The best place to draw the line would be where there is overwhelming evidence that the times were fuelled by doping, anything pre 1990 when it comes to the GDR. You mention Cathy Cooks british record (49.43), but that is at least attainable for the majority of british women, with Christine Ohurugu having come very close on a couple of occasion. When a record is set that by an athlete that has previously been ordinary (Flo-Jo) that rips up the record books, then it just makes a mockery of having a record in the first place. The distance records that were set by the Chinese women who then just as quickly faded into obscurity again are another example. Jeter's best time is 10.64 for the 100, which is 0.15 seconds slower than the record, a lot in sprinting terms, and her regular times are nearer 10.8. Perhaps the most galling thing for todays athletes is that they are trying to compete on an uneven playing field when trying to be the best .. Perhaps people have forgotten what Kratochvilova looked like ?

I beg your pardon, Julio, but Flo-Jo wasn't an ordinary athlete before she overwhelmed the world stage in 1988 culminating in that triple Olympic golden strike in Seoul. She was already Olympic silver medallist in LA in 1984 over 200m, world silver medallist the previous season in Rome inside 22 secs, top of the global 100m lists in 1985 and running about four-five straight seasons under 11 secs or low 22s over the two sprint distances (21.96 in 1987).

Carmelita Jeter set also a 10.67 secs apart from that 10.64 two years ago while you shouldn't forget that it was a non-major championship for the Americans last season, thus quite possibly moving in lower gears.

Fair points but drugs are still rife in athletics and America's record is rather poor to say the least! Given this point how is it possible to draw a line under any set period of time.

I agree with your points julio and the records you mentioned are pretty obviously tainted, but without conclusive proof I don't see how we can justify wiping the records clean just like that.

I mean, suppose Bolt runs 9.5 flat (not impossible), Gay retires with a PB in the high 9.6s or low 9.7s, that would be a gap as big as the one between Flo-Jo and Jeter. If then no one comes closer to Bolt's time in the next twenty or so years, do we say "Bolt must have been PED assisted" and wipe off his records too?

It's back to the same problem really, where do you draw the line? Is it the records which no one gets close to for a long long time? Do you take other factors into account ("she basically looked like a man" / "she improved her PB by more than a second in a few months" / "the time/performance came out of the blue and never came close to being repeated")? Tough to be done objectively IMO.

So yes I agree with your points, and I do think it's unfair on the women nowadays not to compete on a level playing field (records wise) but I don't see any reasonable objective solution.

In response to your points about FloJo ISABRE, she was a good athlete, and would have been in contention for major medals, but to take almost three tenths of a second off the previous world record for the 100, and four tenths for the 200, and then pretty much retire immediately afterwards .. Its very hard to make that kind of improvement just for ONE year. The difference with the likes of Usain Bolt is that he has now been running very fast for three or four years, not just one summer. Again, I think taking a look at her physique in 1988 would pretty much tell its own story, regardless of the nails and hair. Again, my main point is that some of the performances were so dubious that it makes a bit of a mockery of the sport. You can argue the toss over Flo-Jo but she didn't help quell any suspicion thru her actions, and in the case of Koch, Kratochvilova et al, to leave the records intact is tantamount to condoning doping. Even though they were never caught, the evidence (a lot of it on record) overwhemingly sugggests that they were doped so remove their records. When an athlete like Marie Jose Perec found it almost impossible to get within half a second of a twenty year old record, isn't that an indictment of the record itself. There will always be the miracle leap or throw in the field events because thats a confluence of technique,conditions and the heat of competion - Jonathan Edwards or Bob Beamon springs to mind - but again look at the records of the Eastern Bloc men and women compared to their peers .When it comes to track events then that becomes less of a factor. It's not any particular era that I would like to draw a line under either, just to set the record straight if it is blindingly obvious that someone cheated to achieve what they did.

To be fair to Jonathan Edwards, it wasn't so much a "miracle leap" as a miracle year. His world record was just an improvement on his previous jump which had also been a world record (at 18.15 I think) and in the same season he jumped a wind-assisted 18.43 or something.

That summer he was just out of this world, it looked like he was flying through the air.

Off topic, but just thought I'd butt in with that.

My main problem with removing records remains really: at which point do you decide that "the evidence (a lot of it on record) overwhelmingly suggests that they were doped". For some of the Eastern Europeans, they are records, but none for Flo Jo, or the Chinese distance runners. The evidence is strong, but circumstantial only (though it is very strong).

So the basic point remains: where do you draw the line?

PS: I'm not getting at you, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, and I agree with you in principle, but I just find it would be very hard to put in place in reality...

juliobloodysteroids wrote:To take almost three tenths of a second off the previous world record for the 100, and four tenths for the 200, and then pretty much retire immediately afterwards .. Its very hard to make that kind of improvement just for ONE year.

When Flo-Jo came to stun the world with those nearly unbelievable times, you've got to consider that she was right on the end of a five-year-cycle of progressing steadily at world class level which is usually around the point that a big breakthrough lies in the pipeline. So it doesn't look so strange to me from this aspect. Further, she had already achieved everything an athlete could dream of by the end of 1988, with three Olympic titles and two world records way out of reach. With no global championships around until three years later (the Worlds were held every four years at the time) and towards her 30s, it followed normally that she was struggling to find motivation to push for more. Don't forget that Usain Bolt is far younger and was also looking to struggle to find motivation himself after his double triumph in Berlin 2009 and was continually hinting at switching event(s) or even sports - until that defeat from Tyson Gay in Stockholm shook him up and stimulated him back into training. So nothing necessary suspicious there either.

ISABRE.
Without wanting to be too blunt, I have to say that you sound like you want to defend Florence Griffith-Joyner at all costs.
You make a lot of valid points, but your post doesn't mention any of the other examples of doping I have highlighted, just a fireproof
conviction that there was no wrong doing on her part. You may be right, I may be wrong, but the nagging suspicion remains that there
is something TOO good to be true in the explanation you give for her retirement. There are lots of female sprinters who
peak in their early thirties - Gail Devers and Merlene Ottey are two prime examples - and surely from a finanicial point of view
she would have been better placed to cash in on her talents had she been still competing. Surely, as a moderator, there should be a
bit more impartiality at work here.

Mad for Chelsea - If there is any paper evidence then they should be wiped. If not then I agree it is pretty much impossible to define which records should be zeroed but at least you can see what I am trying to drive at. And no it didn't come across that way. After all this is an exchange of opinions, be what they may.

We'll probably never know the trust about Flo-Jo but I strongly doubt her performances were legitimate. The US athletics authorities were, supposedly, behind a number of cover-ups for US athletes including, so the story goes, Carl Lewis. So with that complicity and the relative sophistication in the use of masking agents, it might have been quite easy for her to have been taking drugs undetected when she was producing all those great performances. Her death was also regarded suspiciously from that perspective.

Julio, my work as a moderator is to make sure that the forum runs smooth and help build up a nice environment for everyone to contribute, ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely and none oversteps certain boundaries. That doesn't prevent me from expressing my own views, which I haven't tried to impose on you anyway. Personally, I don't like to go on to cast a shadow over anyone's performances unless there are hard facts and evidence to prove otherwise, simply because I like to respect the endeavours and pains of athletes.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I agree with your points julio and the records you mentioned are pretty obviously tainted, but without conclusive proof I don't see how we can justify wiping the records clean just like that.

I mean, suppose Bolt runs 9.5 flat (not impossible), Gay retires with a PB in the high 9.6s or low 9.7s, that would be a gap as big as the one between Flo-Jo and Jeter. If then no one comes closer to Bolt's time in the next twenty or so years, do we say "Bolt must have been PED assisted" and wipe off his records too?
.

i dont agree in wiping records, bolt is unbelievable and i cant see his records ever being beaten but to wipe records due to that reason is abit unfair

Isn't Radcliffes Marathon record so far beyond what anyone, herself included ever managed, to be viewed in the same light?

Only one East German ever failed a drugs test..... Slupianek in the Shot. Documentation from a former East German Doctor, intent on a career in the West, must, and has been viewed as highly suspicious and has never been acted upon.